that's not the point, the point is kareem wasn't a great player, so the lakers team wasn't enhanced by kareem's greatness because he was well past his prime. and that is arguably the best showtime team. sam perkins was almost just as effective in 91. now if you want to look at the 82 team, there's a lot more legit argument for dominance. of course that team avg 114 a game in a completely different league
why do you just avoid the issue when confronted with something that conflicts with what you are saying? the showtime lakers lost to the rockets in FIVE GAMES. how is that not a beatdown? that is the same team that you said would sweep a 72-10 jordan team. the 86 rockets also took your invincible celtics to 6 games. that same celtic team that you said would sweep the 72-10 bulls. so by your logic the 86 rockets are far and away greater than the 72-10 bulls. and please try to explain your points with something other than and
that is the point. the sky hook was still an undefensible shot. The none of the Bulls team have an answer for the sky hook. please don't embarrass yoursefl w such garbage. yeah, and Twiggy in her 20's was just as sexy as Marilyn Monroe in her waning years.
I don't agree with that. Just because Jordan lost explosiveness didn't make him a lesser player. He was still deadly and still willed his team to victory. Fadeaway Mike over Air Jordan any day of the week in my book.
a great player with one less tool to work with certainly is not as good as when he had all the tools at his disposal
I saw all of those teams quite a bit. That you would term it simplistically "3 against 2" shows how little you know about any of those 3 teams. Give me a break. You don't realize how stupid you sound. Quit pretending to be older than you are or I'll tell your mama so she can restrict your computer privileges.
thank you Max. that corroborates with my observation that pgabriel was being intellectually dishonest !
The thing about the Blazers' series was the Blazers were just helpless. Everything depended on how motivated the Bulls played. I was ticked off about the lapses in focus the Bulls showed during portions of some of the games. IMO, the 96 team was the best ever. They were like a nasty machine.
actually it is you and those of your ilk, blinded by the 72 wins, that are stupid. one more stupid remark from you, i have W's operatives to send u to Gzmo to be water-boarded !
Hes right dude, some of you posts sounds completely insane....none of the bulls teams in the top 10? The rest of us have said, hands down, that the 96 bulls were the best. Blinded by 72 wins? Are you kidding me? I've heard some insane bullcrap but boy..oh boy
it is mental midget like you that don't understand. think, that is if you able to ! how many great players on each of the Bulls team ? and the ShowTime Lakers, and the Bird-led Celtics? next
hey kid calm down with the insults. you've diminished any points you have been trying to prove with your complete lack of respect for other members here.
Why does it matter on who was on the team? Look at the accomplishments, i couldn't give a rat's ass if i had the most talented team in the NBA if i got beat by one with great chemistry. Your argument that the bulls didn't have as many great players make you sound foolish
